This deliverable is not counted toward your grade
Project Start and Technical Implementation (site, data and investigation) pages are required practice but are not counted toward your final grade. Your engineering grade comes from Chapter 4 and Chapter 5.
Investigation Overview
Students produce a scoped investigation plan that maps every design decision in the proposal back to a required field, laboratory, or records-based data source.
Section progress
0% of the workflow complete
Field & Laboratory · Plan, execute and document field and laboratory data collection to a defensible quality standard.
Deliverable: Investigation scope-of-work document with data-needs traceability matrix.
How to complete this section
Do this next: Read the Investigation Overview lecture and the worked example so you know what "Investigation scope-of-work document with data-needs traceability matrix." has to contain.
Not sure how to start or how much depth is expected? Read the fully written model example for this deliverable first — it shows the structure, tables and level of justification your advisor grades against.
Site Investigation Lab — what this workspace teaches
Plan, execute and document field and laboratory data collection to a defensible quality standard.
- Planning a subsurface, structural or traffic field investigation
- Instrumentation selection, resolution, accuracy and calibration records
- GPS/GNSS positioning: datums, projections, RTK vs. handheld accuracy
- GIS data capture, attribute schemas and coordinate metadata
- Land surveying: traverses, levelling, closure and error adjustment
- Sampling strategy: representative sampling, spacing, depth intervals, replicates
- ASTM/AASHTO laboratory testing procedures and reporting requirements
- Chain of custody, sample labelling and preservation
- QA/QC: duplicates, blanks, repeatability and data validation rules
End-of-term milestones
- Tuesday, November 17, 2026 — Poster printed and ready. 36 in × 48 in poster finalized and printed one week before the November 24 showcase.
- Wednesday, November 18, 2026 — Final document package uploaded for scoring. Chapters 4–5, calculation package, drawings and appendices uploaded in the app for advisor scoring.
- Wednesday, November 18, 2026 — Poster presentation to faculty and industry. Wednesday poster session — printed 36 in × 48 in poster presented in person; industry reviewers score communication and impact.
- Wednesday, November 25, 2026 — Oral presentation and defense (scored). Scored oral presentation and defense held on Wednesday, November 25.
Investigation Overview
Students produce a scoped investigation plan that maps every design decision in the proposal back to a required field, laboratory, or records-based data source.
Section B
Engineering story
A real project situation that frames this module
It is week 2 of implementation and the civil engineering practice team has reached investigation overview. Students produce a scoped investigation plan that maps every design decision in the proposal back to a required field, laboratory, or records-based data source. The advisor of record asks one question: what establishes that data-needs traceability matrix linking each Chapter 4 design decision to a required investigation task?
Beginning field work before defining which design decision the data will support. Because desktop study vs, the error does not stay local: it is carried into the data foundation every later calculation silently depends on, and every downstream product inherits it before anyone notices.
The owner, the reviewing agency and the engineer of record carry the consequence. On this module specifically, the exposure runs through investigation scope-of-work structure, and the cost of correction rises every week the project record moves closer to issue.
Decisions the engineer must make
- What record establishes data-needs traceability matrix linking each Chapter 4 design decision to a required investigation task, and is that record in the project data inventory?
- Does ASCE 7-22 (2022), Ch. 11 & 26, govern here — and is that the edition adopted by the jurisdiction?
- What is the acceptance criterion for desktop study vs, and was it written before the result was known?
- Is the documented procedure valid for the conditions this project actually presents?
- If the check fails, does the team revise the project record or raise a change request against the locked baseline?
Photo 1. Field review: the conversation in which a scope, a constraint or a decision is actually settled.
Capstone Studio instructional photograph
Section C
Why this matters
Professional
A licensed engineer defending investigation overview cites ASCE 7-22 (2022), Ch. 11 & 26, and shows the record behind each input. Your investigation scope-of-work document with data-needs traceability matrix. is reviewed the same way — traceability is assessed before arithmetic.
Technical
Data-needs traceability matrix linking each Chapter 4 design decision to a required investigation task controls the numbers this module hands forward. Desktop study vs determines whether those numbers remain valid once conditions change.
Safety
The failure mode this module guards against is a decision made without a traceable basis. It reaches people through risk-based investigation sequencing — highest-uncertainty items investigated first, which is why the safety check is recorded explicitly here rather than inferred from a passing strength or performance check.
Economic
The data foundation every later calculation silently depends on is priced from this work. Quantities, unit costs and schedule float all trace to data-needs traceability matrix linking each Chapter 4 design decision to a required investigation task; a late correction here is paid for as a change order, not a redline.
Environmental
Environmentally, this module fixes material use, land disturbance and the waste stream generated by rework. Choosing conservatively without justification is not free — the excess shows up as material, energy and land that the project consumes for no measurable gain.
Community
A traceability matrix that forces every buried-utility assumption to a verified record prevents costly field conflicts discovered mid-construction. The residents and agencies who inherit the completed work live with that outcome long after the semester ends.
Section D
Learning objectives
By the end of this module you will be able to:
- 1.Interpret data-needs traceability matrix linking each Chapter 4 design decision to a required investigation task, using this project's own conditions rather than a textbook case.
- 2.Apply desktop study vs, using this project's own conditions rather than a textbook case.
- 3.Justify investigation scope-of-work structure, using this project's own conditions rather than a textbook case.
- 4.Explain distinguishing existing (secondary) data from newly collected (primary) data and their reliability tiers, using this project's own conditions rather than a textbook case.
- 5.Apply ASCE 7-22 (2022), Ch. 11 & 26, and cite the section that governs your acceptance decision.
- 6.Produce investigation scope-of-work document with data-needs traceability matrix. at a standard the advisor of record would accept without a second revision cycle.
Section E
Instructional content
Full lecture notes with figures and governing equations
The engineering content of investigation overview
Students produce a scoped investigation plan that maps every design decision in the proposal back to a required field, laboratory, or records-based data source. That single sentence hides the substance of the module: data-needs traceability matrix linking each Chapter 4 design decision to a required investigation task, and desktop study vs. Both must be established from project evidence before anything downstream is credible.
In civil engineering practice, this work is the input to the project record. Investigation scope-of-work structure — which is why this page asks you to record the source of every quantity, not just its value. The data foundation every later calculation silently depends on depends on it.
- Data-needs traceability matrix linking each Chapter 4 design decision to a required investigation task
- Desktop study vs. field reconnaissance vs. instrumented monitoring — when each tier is justified
- Investigation scope-of-work structure: objectives, tasks, schedule, budget, deliverables
- Distinguishing existing (secondary) data from newly collected (primary) data and their reliability tiers
- Risk-based investigation sequencing — highest-uncertainty items investigated first
Photo 1. The engineering content of investigation overview in practice — Field review: the conversation in which a scope, a constraint or a decision is actually settled.
Capstone Studio instructional photograph
Decision logic: the procedure that replaces a closed-form solution
Investigation Overview is governed by a documented procedure rather than a single expression, so the decision logic is the deliverable: what you accept, what you reject, and on what evidence. Data-needs traceability matrix linking each Chapter 4 design decision to a required investigation task.
Write the acceptance criterion before you look at the result. Desktop study vs — recording the criterion afterwards lets it be shaped to fit the number you happened to get.
Photo 2. Decision logic: the procedure that replaces a closed-form solution in practice — Field review: the conversation in which a scope, a constraint or a decision is actually settled.
Capstone Studio instructional photograph
Constraints, adopted standards and the safety case for investigation overview
ASCE 7-22 (2022), Ch. 11 & 26, governs this module: Defines site-specific hazard data (seismic, wind) an investigation must supply ASTM D420 (2018), Full standard, adds the second constraint: Guide for site characterization for engineering, design, and construction purposes
The safety case is explicit here. The failure mode is a decision made without a traceable basis; the people exposed are the owner, the reviewing agency and the engineer of record; the control that prevents it is risk-based investigation sequencing — highest-uncertainty items investigated first together with an independent check by someone who did not perform the work.
- Controlling criterion for this module: data-needs traceability matrix linking each Chapter 4 design decision to a required investigation task.
- Adopted reference: ASCE 7-22 (2022) — cite Ch. 11 & 26 by number.
- Failure mode guarded: a decision made without a traceable basis.
- Evidence produced: Investigation scope-of-work document with data-needs traceability matrix..
Photo 3. Constraints, adopted standards and the safety case for investigation overview in practice — Field review: the conversation in which a scope, a constraint or a decision is actually settled.
Capstone Studio instructional photograph
Where this method stops being valid
Every method has a domain of validity. State the range of geometry, loading, material behaviour or flow regime over which your approach holds, and state what you would do instead beyond it.
For this project, the boundary you are most likely to push is risk-based investigation sequencing — highest-uncertainty items investigated first. If you cross it, say so in writing, bound the error, and carry the limitation into your results chapter. A disclosed limitation is professional practice; a silent extrapolation is not.
Photo 4. Where this method stops being valid in practice — Compression test on a concrete cylinder: the measurement behind every f′c used in design.
Wikimedia Commons, public domain
Section F
Engineering workflow
Steps
- 1. Assemble the inputs this module needs — data-needs traceability matrix linking each Chapter 4 design decision to…; desktop study vs — each with a unit and a source record.
- 2. Confirm ASCE 7-22 (2022) is the adopted edition and locate Ch. 11 & 26.
- 3. State the assumptions and the acceptance criterion for data-needs traceability matrix linking each Chapter 4 design decision to a required investigation task.
- 4. Execute the documented procedure, recording each judgement and the evidence behind it.
- 5. Test the result against investigation scope-of-work structure.
- 6. Audit units and run an order-of-magnitude check by hand before the number leaves your desk.
- 7. Obtain an independent check from a teammate who did not perform the work, and record their name and date.
- 8. Assemble investigation scope-of-work document with data-needs traceability matrix. and submit it to the advisor of record for review.
Decision points
- Is every input behind data-needs traceability matrix linking each Chapter 4 design decision to a required… traceable? If not — stop and collect the record.
- Does the result satisfy desktop study vs? If not — revise the work, never the criterion.
- Would the correction change the data foundation every later calculation silently depends on? If yes — raise a change-control request before proceeding.
- Have you ruled out the most common error on this module — beginning field work before defining which design decision the data will support?
Quality checklist
- Documented: data-needs traceability matrix linking each Chapter 4 design decision to a required…
- Documented: desktop study vs
- Documented: investigation scope-of-work structure
- ASCE 7-22 Ch. 11 & 26 cited by section number
- Procedure steps recorded in order with evidence
- Acceptance criterion recorded before the result
- Independent check signed and dated
- Investigation scope-of-work document with data-needs traceability matrix. attached and named per the course convention
Section H
Interactive visualization
Investigation Overview — step-through
Advance one frame at a time. Each frame adds one engineering decision to the previous state.
Step 1 of 6
List every design decision carried forward from the approved Capstone I proposal.
Section I
Applicable codes and standards
ASCE 7-22
2022 · Ch. 11 & 26
Adopted design/analysis reference governing this module.
Relevance: Defines site-specific hazard data (seismic, wind) an investigation must supply
Reference the section number and edition in your calculation package. Do not reproduce code text.
ASTM D420
2018 · Full standard
Adopted design/analysis reference governing this module.
Relevance: Guide for site characterization for engineering, design, and construction purposes
Reference the section number and edition in your calculation package. Do not reproduce code text.
Section J
Worked examples
Full engineering solution format
Section K
Common mistakes and how to avoid them
- Beginning field work before defining which design decision the data will support.
- Treating a 40-year-old as-built drawing as equivalent in reliability to a current field survey.
- Sequencing investigation tasks by convenience instead of by decision-critical path.
- Treating data-needs traceability matrix linking each Chapter 4 design decision to a required investigation task as a given instead of establishing it from a project record.
- Producing investigation scope-of-work document with data-needs traceability matrix. without showing how desktop study vs was satisfied.
- Recording the outcome of this module without recording the judgement and evidence that produced it.
- Missing risk-based investigation sequencing — highest-uncertainty items investigated first, which is exactly the path to a decision made without a traceable basis.
- Collecting data before defining what decision the data has to support.
- Accepting a laboratory or field value without its method, date, operator and uncertainty.
- Ignoring constructability: a design that cannot be built safely is not a completed design.
- Omitting the safety check because the strength check passed.
- Referencing figures, tables, or sources that never appear in the reference list.
Section L
Industry case study
Big Dig utility conflicts, Boston
Central Artery/Tunnel Project utility relocation phase
Official findings
- Post-project reviews documented that incomplete subsurface utility investigation contributed to numerous field conflicts and change orders during construction.
Field observations
- The controlling assumption was documented nowhere in the design record.
- No independent check existed at the stage where the error entered the work.
Engineering interpretation
- Interpretation below is student analysis for instructional purposes, not an official finding.
- Map the failure to a step in your own workflow and state where your process would have caught it.
Lessons learned
- A traceability matrix that forces every buried-utility assumption to a verified record prevents costly field conflicts discovered mid-construction.
Source: Summarize the published investigation; cite it in your reference list. Do not reproduce copyrighted report text.
Section M
FE Civil exam connection
Handbook FE Reference Handbook — civil engineering practice section (record the section number from your handbook edition).
Exam topics
Handbook formulas
Weak results here feed your FE Civil Academy weak-area queue for targeted practice.
Question 1 of 2
Score: 0/2In investigation overview, which item must be established BEFORE the analysis is run?
Section N
Apply it to your project — Investigation Overview
Complete this using your own capstone project data. Every field is saved to your project record and routed to your advisor with this module's submission.
Inputs and sources
Every value needs a traceable source.
| Quantity | Value | Unit | Source / record |
|---|
Assumptions and consequences
| Assumption | Basis | Consequence if wrong |
|---|
Self-check before submission
Section O
Design challenge
Consulting challenge — Investigation Overview
Your firm must submit an investigation scope and fee within five business days for a site with no available geotechnical history.
Client request: The client wants a defensible recommendation, the basis of design, and an honest statement of what remains unresolved.
Constraints
- Fixed fee ceiling set by the client RFP
- Two-week field mobilization window
- Owner requires justification for every proposed boring or test
Deliverables
- One-page data-needs traceability matrix
- Investigation scope-of-work with schedule
Evaluation
- Technical correctness
- Standard compliance
- Clarity of engineering judgment
- Honest treatment of uncertainty
Section P
Documentation workspace
Write the report section for this module in the academic editor
Section Q
File uploads
Accepted: PDF, DOCX, XLSX, CSV, PNG, JPG, ZIP
No files uploaded yet.
Section R
Deliverable and advisor review
Investigation scope-of-work document with data-needs traceability matrix.
Submissions route to your assigned faculty advisor and are scored independently by faculty and administrator rubrics.
Reflection
What was the hardest engineering judgment in this module, and how did you resolve it?
Section S
ABET outcome mapping
Investigation scope-of-work document with data-needs traceability matrix. with advisor review and dual scoring.
Assessment: Faculty rubric score and administrator rubric score on this module's submission.
Rubric: Data quality · Target: 70% of students at or above 'meets expectations'.
Investigation scope-of-work document with data-needs traceability matrix. with advisor review and dual scoring.
Assessment: Faculty rubric score and administrator rubric score on this module's submission.
Rubric: Data quality · Target: 70% of students at or above 'meets expectations'.
Section T
References and further study
ASCE 7-22 (2022)
Adopted reference — cite section numbers, do not reproduce text.
ASTM D420 (2018)
Adopted reference — cite section numbers, do not reproduce text.
Investigation Overview — instructor design procedure
Course template for the calculation package format expected in the final report appendix.
NCEES FE Reference Handbook
Locate the equations used here and note the handbook section for exam recall.
Advisor meeting agenda item
Bring the unresolved decision from this module to your next weekly advisor meeting.